Wednesday, October 24, 2012
- Finish the job
- More “flexibility” in foreign affairs.
- What “job” are we talking about? Effectively nationalizing our health care—one seventh of our GDP with a projected result of more expensive (rather than less) and arbitrarily rationed treatments (yes, Virginia, there will be “death panels”)? Effectively handcuffing our fossil fuels industry with extremely restrictive environmental and other regulations in order to make “green” energy economically competitive? (Remember, “Under my plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket”?) Drawing down our military to a lower capability than existed before WWII (when US Army trainees drilled with wooden mock rifles)? Imposing crippling taxes and regulations on business with the result that the number of US citizens on food stamps and welfare continues to increase while at the same time the aggregate skill set of our workforce atrophies? Centralizing all power in the federal government in blatant disregard of the Constitutional structure that has worked well since 1789?
- Flexibility toward Putin's Russia translates, in my mind, to bending over and kissing your a** goodbye. In other areas, does flexibility include allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons capability, by which I mean the ability to manufacture nuclear bombs and deliver them to a target? Does flexibility mean continuing to spit in the eyes of our allies while kissing up to our adversaries? Does flexibility mean accepting the creation of an Islamic Caliphate in which al-Qaeda or something like it rules the Levant, Southwest Asia and the northern half of Africa?
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
First, it was probably the most obvious topic for the third and final debate on foreign affairs and America's place in the world. It was, after all, the first question posed by Bob Schieffer. I am absolutely sure that Obama and his handlers anticipated a tough question from the moderator and even tougher comments from Romney, and had prepared a Really Good Response to the question.
Second, given the trap that Obama laid for Romney on the "terrorist attack" statement that he (didn't) make on 12 September, Romney probably anticipated that Obama would be loaded for bear on the issue and would no doubt try to spring another such trap. (He did, on the GM bankruptcy issue, but fumbled badly--Obama provided a great example of what happens when you try to be a smart-ass without being smart.)
But most importantly, with two weeks to go in the campaign and facts still coming out about Benghazi, I suspect that Romney didn't want to give Obama the opportunity to give an explanation of what happened in a situation that didn't lend itself to follow-up questions by knowledgeable questioners, and which would permit Obama to deflect all future questions with "I've already addressed that--it's old news, let's move on." I think Romney wanted to leave Benghazi as an open wound to fester until Election Day. The strategy would have the added benefit of having others not standing for election to be the tough interrogators, and Romney looking "presidential". The MSM is in the tank for Obama, but I suspect in the end it's more important to them to be seen as not supporting a loser than it is to be loyal to their idol to the bitter end.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
A nice little Easter egg for the new president and the American people.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
The other thing that jumped out at me was the number of times Mr. Castro said things that sounded very much like statements made by Marco Rubio, Ms. Martinez and Paul Ryan the week before. It was almost as if the Dems focus-grouped the Republican speeches and cherry-picked the points that got the best response. But, being Democrats, they wouldn't so blatantly plagiarize Republican ideas, would they?
Well, would they?
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Now, why might that be?
This seems like an attempt to influence the American presidential election by a foreign power. Not cool.
Any such behavior by China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba and/or Iran is sufficient, in my view, to require voting for the candidate they disfavor. Especially after Obama's little tete-a-tete with Medvedev. Who knows what similar conversations he might have had with other foreign leaders that weren't captured on tape?
Friday, August 24, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Sooner or later, it seems to me, the left-leaning media are going to figure out that constantly using that word (as they do) casts grave doubts on the competency of the BLS or whoever "expects" something different. I mean, how many times can you say "I was blindsided" before people start thinking you have no clue?
I believe we now are in the vicinity of 60 consecutive weeks in which the previous week's jobless claim number was adjusted upward. That kind of trend indicates a bias in the system somewhere. If the estimation algorithm were unbiased, some weeks would be adjusted up and some down, in about equal numbers. Also, the upward adjustment always seems to be (based on my faulty memory) somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 new claims. That consistency also suggests a bias in the system.
I'm sure those analysts in the BLS are well-paid (recent stories give lie to the old assumption that government jobs don't pay as well as private sector jobs do). What are we getting for our hard-earned tax dollars?
Mind you, I'm not accusing the BLS of consciously cooking the books. What I am saying is that they are using bad technique and ought to devote some serious effort toward getting it right.